Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On November 24, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury, etc. at Suwon Friwon, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 23, 2017.

From mid-of March 2016 to September 2016, the Defendant without permission held large cicks on the access road to D land in Ansan-si, Sinsan-si, the victim C’s ownership. This part of the facts charged includes the expression “the Defendant controlled the lessee, etc. by employing security guards and prohibiting them from entering the area.” However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize it, and the remaining Defendant’s act alone is deemed to constitute the crime of property damage. Thus, this part is deleted ex officio from the facts charged.

By controlling the lessee G and his family members, deaf-mutes, etc. to prevent access to the access to the above D land and the access road to the above D land, the use of the D land and the access road to the above D land was prevented by allowing the victim to use the D land and the access road to the above D land in Ansan-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Police investigation report (Attachment of site photographs submitted by a complainant);

1. Previous conviction: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A), personal acceptance status, sentence of judgment, prosecutor's report on investigation results of case search (Attachment, etc. to final judgment of the person under investigation);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order constitutes "an act that does not violate social rules" as provided by Article 20 of the Criminal Act, since the defendant had a lien on D land and access roads at Ansan City, and thus the defendant's act constitutes "an act that does not violate social rules."